Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Acquits Two Accused: Farida Begum vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: December 4, 2018

Citation: Not Available in the provided document

Judges: N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and M. R. Shah.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when there are questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the presence of the accused at the scene? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving multiple accused persons convicted for the murder of one Mukhtar Ahmed. This judgment examines the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, focusing on the credibility of witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The bench consisted of Justices N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and M. R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

On July 1, 1999, at approximately 8:00 PM, Shahid Hussain, along with Mukhtar Ahmed and Mohd. Rafi, visited the house of Rafiq Ahmed (Dildar) after their evening prayers. Around 8:20 PM, while Dildar was inside preparing tea, Smt. Farida Begum (A1), along with Mohd. Ashraf, Raees Ahmed, Raees Ahmed @ Satna, Mohd. Aslam, Naseem @ Churti, and Idrish, and one unknown person, entered Dildar’s house. According to the prosecution, Mohd. Aslam and Idrish held Mukhtar Ahmed’s hands, while Naseem @ Churti and the unknown person held his legs. Smt. Farida Begum allegedly exhorted that Mukhtar Ahmed should be killed, stating, *”the son of Darji should be finished and we will see how he removes me as Chairman of the Nagar Palika.”* Following this, Raees Ahmed, Raees Ahmed @ Satna, and Mohd. Ashraf fired their guns at Mukhtar Ahmed, resulting in his death. Subsequently, Smt. Farida Begum threatened that anyone who named them to the police or supported a no-confidence motion against her would also be killed.

The case was investigated by D.K. Sharma, who reached the spot around 9:15 PM. He prepared the inquest report by 11:45 PM and recorded statements of witnesses. The investigation led to the arrest of the accused and the recovery of firearms. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Smt. Farida Begum (A1), Mohd. Ashraf (A2), Raees Ahmed (A4), Raees Ahmed @ Satna (A5), Mohd. Nasim @ Churti (A6), and Idrish (A7) for offenses under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. Additionally, Smt. Farida Begum, Mohd. Nasim @ Churti, and Idrish were convicted under Section 147 of the IPC, and Mohd. Ashraf, Raees Ahmed, and Raees Ahmed @ Satna were convicted under Section 148 of the IPC. The accused were acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the accused filed criminal appeals before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court dismissed the appeals of Smt. Farida Begum (A1), Mohd. Ashraf (A2), Raees Ahmed (A4), and Raees Ahmed @ Satna (A5), upholding their convictions. However, the High Court allowed the appeals of Mohd. Nasim @ Churti (A6) and Idrish (A7), acquitting them by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Subsequently, Smt. Farida Begum (A1), Mohd. Ashraf (A2), and Raees Ahmed @ Satna (A5) filed criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision. Raees Ahmed (A4) did not file an appeal, but his case was also considered by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 147, IPC: “Punishment for rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” This section deals with the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section addresses rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” This section deals with the concept of common intention in an unlawful assembly.

These sections of the IPC are used to determine the culpability and punishment of the accused in the murder case.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Original Accused No. 1 (Smt. Farida Begum):

• The conviction was based on the unreliable testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, who had material contradictions in their statements.
• The prosecution failed to prove the motive for Smt. Farida Begum to commit the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed. The alleged enmity with PW1 was not a sufficient reason for her to exhort the killing of Mukhtar Ahmed.
• The size of the room where the incident occurred made it impossible for 11 persons to be present, thus making the prosecution’s story unbelievable.
• There were material contradictions regarding the electricity supply at the time of the incident. The defense proved that there was no electricity, making it impossible for witnesses to identify the accused.
• DW2, the son of the house owner, testified that Smt. Farida Begum was not present during the incident.
• Smt. Farida Begum should have been given the benefit of doubt, similar to Accused Nos. 6 and 7.

Arguments on behalf of Original Accused No. 2 (Mohd. Ashraf):

• Adopted the submissions made by the counsel for Original Accused No. 1.

Arguments on behalf of Original Accused No. 5 (Raees Ahmed @ Satna):

• Given the small size of the room, it was impossible for Accused Nos. 4 and 5 to fire their weapons.
• The prosecution failed to prove that Accused Nos. 4 and 5 actually fired their weapons. The firearm allegedly used by Accused No. 5 was not recovered, and no bullet was seized. There was no ballistic report to prove he fired a gun.
• Accused No. 5 should be acquitted on the same grounds as Accused Nos. 6 and 7.
• Accused No. 5 was acquitted under the Arms Act, which should also lead to his acquittal in the murder case.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand and the Original Complainant:

• The High Court and Trial Court correctly convicted the accused.
• The motive for Smt. Farida Begum to exhort the killing of the deceased was established.
• The overwhelming evidence, especially the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, proved the presence of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the scene.
• There were no material contradictions in the depositions of PWs 1 and 2.
• The testimony of DW3, the Junior Engineer, was unreliable and fabricated to favor the accused. The prosecution successfully proved that there was electricity supply at the time of the incident.
• The cases of Accused Nos. 6 and 7 are different from Accused Nos. 4 and 5, and therefore, the latter are not entitled to acquittal on the same grounds.
• The acquittal of the accused under the Arms Act does not mean they should be acquitted for other offenses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the original Accused No. 1 for the offenses under Sections 302/149 and Section 147 of the IPC.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the original Accused No. 2 for the offenses under Sections 302/149 and Section 148 of the IPC.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the original Accused No. 5 for the offenses under Sections 302/149 and Section 148 of the IPC.
4. Whether the original Accused No. 4, who did not file an appeal, was entitled to any relief.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following cases were cited by the counsels:

• Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 543 – Supreme Court of India
• Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773 – Supreme Court of India
• Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134 – Supreme Court of India
• Hoshiar Singh v. State of Punjab 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 413 – Supreme Court of India
• Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 762 – Supreme Court of India
• Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116 – Supreme Court of India
• Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511 – Supreme Court of India
• Phani Bhusan Das v. State of West Bengal (1994) SCC (Cri) 1752 – Supreme Court of India
• Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84 – Supreme Court of India

The following legal provisions were considered by the court:

• Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of original Accused No. 1 (Smt. Farida Begum) and original Accused No. 2 (Mohd. Ashraf), stating that their presence and role in the murder were established beyond doubt through the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. The Court also noted that the motive for Smt. Farida Begum to commit the crime was adequately proven.

However, the Supreme Court acquitted original Accused No. 5 (Raees Ahmed @ Satna) by giving him the benefit of doubt. The Court reasoned that the small size of the room and the lack of evidence showing that Accused No. 5 fired his weapon justified his acquittal. The Court also took suo moto cognizance of the case of original Accused No. 4 (Raees Ahmed), who did not file an appeal, and acquitted him on similar grounds.

The Court stated, *”The presence of original Accused No. 1 at the time of the incident has been established and proved beyond doubt by the prosecution.”*

The Court also noted, *”PW1 has categorically stated that the original Accused No. 1 exhorted and said that the deceased must be finished and further stated that she will see how the “no confidence motion” is passed against her.”*

Further, the court observed, *”Looking to the dimension of the room and the role attributed to the original Accused Nos.4 and 5, we are of the opinion that the original Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are required to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt, as has been given to the original Accused Nos. 6 and 7 by the High Court.”*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the direct eyewitness accounts provided by PW1 and PW2, which established the presence and actions of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Court also considered the motive behind the crime, particularly the political rivalry involving Accused No. 1. The reliability of the defense’s evidence, especially the testimony of DW3, was questioned, and the Court found that the evidence was fabricated. The benefit of doubt was extended to Accused Nos. 4 and 5 due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the improbability of firing weapons in a small room.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Smt. Farida Begum and Mohd. Ashraf for the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed, while acquitting Raees Ahmed @ Satna and Raees Ahmed. The judgment highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony and the burden of proof in criminal cases. The Court’s decision to acquit two of the accused demonstrates a careful consideration of the evidence and the application of the principle of “benefit of doubt.” This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in determining guilt in cases involving multiple accused and conflicting testimonies.